Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Krusty on August 03, 2005, 02:12:47 PM
-
Word is our that Pyro's made some decisions on the new spit lineup. It sounds interesting. However I'm curious if there's going to be any changes to the 109 lineup.
I'm not asking for obscure models or anything. For the most part I think we have a fairly good 109 lineup. But I have a suggestion or two.
From what I understand (gurus PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) the only difference between the E-1 and the E-3/E-4 is the wing guns, which were 7mm in the E-1. I believe they had the same engine and everything else.
Would it then be possible to add a weapons option to the 109E-4 in AH, to replace the MG/FF with 7mm guns? For early matchups if possible?
It's a thought.
We currently have:
109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-10
That's a pretty good lineup. What I might see as a possible gap is between the E4 and the F4, performance-wise there was the E-7 (which also had a DT). Other than that, I see no real need for an F2 (weaker gun? Engine problems? No thanks).
Some have called for a G14. This would be a bit faster than the G6 (slower than the G10) and be a later model, but it would be almost the same and when you've got the G10 there's no need for a G14.
Some have called for the G10 to be renamed K4 and only given the 30mm option (and some have suggested a perk price for this ride), and then putting in an early G10 or a G14 with 20mm only option, unperked.
I'm just bringing the subject up for discussion. There are one or two minor things that can be done (that I can see) but for the most part it looks decent. No real need for new planes, but if an E-1 or E-7 were put in they might see scenario use, or setup use, or just "fly for fun" use, but they'd not be any powerhouse when it comes to MA use.
-
Good suggestions Krusty
-
Krusty,
There is a huge gap from the early 1943 G-6 to the late 1944 G-10. The G-14 is a early 1944 109 that would fill that huge performance gap. It is not the same time as the G-10.
Right now we go from a 386mph G-6 to a 452mph G-10 with no mid point. This is a big problem for historical setups.
-
I realize there were large performance leaps at the end of the war, but the G-6 was used for a long time, historically from 43 through 44. The changes and modifications got so varried that the G14 was (from what I understand) basically just the latest version of the G6, but standardized (all were the same, instead of some having X, some having Y, etc).
I guess what I'm asking is -- do you think we really need one in between there? Towards the end of the war the LW was forced to take on better performing aircraft (they had no choice but to fight). Isn't that sort of what we have modeled now?
-
Well, that is a oversimplification.
Our G-6 lacks MW50. The Bf109G-6/AS had MW50 and is also an early 1944 109 with much the same performance as the G-14.
To fill the gap they need to do one of the following:
Add the Bf109G-6/AS (which has the awkwardness of having two Bf109G-6s)
Add the Bf109G-14
Add the Bf109K-4 and reduce the performance of the Bf109G-10 levels to the lower standard Bf109G-10
It is just a matter of which is the best option.
The Bf109G-14 did about 415mph as I recall.
So:
Bf109G-2: 402mph, no 30mm and 7.92mm cowl guns
Bf109G-6: 386mph
Bf109G-14: 415mph
Bf109G-10: 452mph
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Add the Bf109K-4 and reduce the performance of the Bf109G-10 levels to the lower standard Bf109G-10
I see what you're saying about the G14/G6AS.
However I don't think we need both G14 and separate K4/G10. What was the performance on the early G10s? I know the late G10s were nearly identical to the K4 (and we have a K4 modeled in AH now), so would an early G10 take the place of a G14, as a step here:
G-6
(MISSING)
G10 (really K4)
I'm all for ditching the G10 and just saying we have a K4 (name change). Unless there is a big performance difference (like say it's an early G10) I don't see a need for both.
-
I agree we don't need both a K-4 and a G-10 that performs like a K-4.
We just need something to fill in that "missing" step. The G-14 just looks like the most expedient way to do it.
The G-14 isn't good enough to represent the 109s from early 1944 to the end so we need a G-10 or K-4 for that purpose.
What would be nice would be:
Bf109E-4
Bf109F-2
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
Bf109G-10 or Bf109K-4
I would pick the F-2 to oppose the Spitfire Mk Vb as the Mk Vb will eat a Bf109E-7 for lunch.
-
F-2 was almost identical to F4, and you'd have to model a gun weaker than the MG151/20... it would essentially be a MG13 (13mm, 15mm, pretty close) with very little hitting power. I think an F-4 can substitute well, especially considering all the people that claim the current F4 v. the +12 spitV was one of THE best matchups ever in AH history (gameplay wise). I think the F4 will do nicely, and I suppose that is why we are going back to a +12 spitV -- for the better match against its historical opponent.
But I think the E-7 would have its place, as it served in the Afrika Corps, it served in the Eastern front until late '42, and it would be an interesting thing to pit against various early war planes.
Bf109E-4
Bf109E-7
Bf109F-4
Bf109G-2
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14 or early G10
Bf109K-4 (a rose by any other name...)
I'd love to see the possibility of pre-BOB setups, too, so I personally like the idea of the E-1, but I doubt anybody but myself would stand behind it.
-
Our Bf109F-4 is operating at 1942 boost levels just like the +16lbs boost Spit V, so it is not the same as an early 1941 Bf109F-2.
I'm not sure what the E-7 would bring really. We already have the E-4 for the BoB and the E-7 would be meat to the Mk Vb.
Adding the E-7 seems like adding the Spitfire Mk IIa to me.
But the bigest gap is the one between our G-6 and G-10.
-
The SpitV had 6 months before the F4 came out, and then had to fight against the F4 for a year. That was a quote from another thread (might be the spit thread). The F-0 through the F-4 were built and developed inside of 6 months, and didn't last very long before the F-4 came out. I don't think that's a long enough timespan to allow for a variant.
The E-7, however, was faster than the E-4, had a better engine, better high alt performance with an improved WEP system, and served for years. Not necessarily against the SpitV, as the 109F was being developed to counter the spitV. However the E-7 fought all other types of aircraft, including hurris and other lend-lease aircraft sent to Russia (think FinRus setups), if you want an early setup you really can't put the E4 in because often the setup is unbalanced, so they F4 is put in to make it more playable. With the E-7 you'd not need to compromise.
With Tunisia or Med setups you'd have the E-7, which flew against hurris, spits, and other aircraft in the desert setting. 109E4 vs hurriMk1 is one thing, but E4 vs HurrMk2 is another. The E-7 would be better able to handle the intermediate aircraft, including FAA wildcats and the like.
Hey I'm not 100% attached to the E7, don't think I've gone totally nuts. If there are no 109 additions I'll be fine with that. I'm just sharing why I think it'd be more useful than an F-2
-
How about you do what I did, call Pyro and ask him.
You could just do what we did in the Spit thread -
Find one model for each of the years 1940-1945 that is representative.
And yes is it that simple, we just looked at each year, which Mk was the most produced and posted our results.
From speaking to Pyro he read the threads and agreed that what we came up was 'representative'.
e.g. No small run production variants, thats why no Spit XII (although al ot of us would have liked it)
One thing - He will be looking for models that can be used in scenarios, as well as the MA. So maybe base it on the Spit lineup and pick the historical 109/190 that goes with it.
So take -
1940 - Spit 1
1941 - Spit Vb
1942 - Spit F IX
1943 - Spit LF VIII (you get a free here no 109/190 historic opponent)
1944 - Spit LF XVI
1945 - Spit F XIV
Put one 109/190 behind each date - easy.
-
they need to fix the 109 guns before they add more 109's
-
From what I understand there's nothing to fix. They are the way they are. They fire from your plane, and if you've moved your plane into the proper position they will hit other planes. Sounds like they work, to me!
-
We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.
-
Interesting, thanks for the news, Pyro!
Am I to guess that the G10 as we knew it is going to be listed as a K4 now?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.
:eek:
What? Why? Are you going to be getting rid of any other planes?
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
:eek:
What? Why? Are you going to be getting rid of any other planes?
If I understand Pyro's plans the Seafire IIc will also no longer be in AH and it will be replaced with the Seafire L.III
I would expect to see the Bf109K-4 replace the Bf109G-10 in much the same way.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.
NathBDP just commited suicide.
-
lmao, like I said above, "A rose by any other name, would fly just as well"... The G10 we have is modeled off of K4 info. Chances are they're trashing the entire idea of a G10 and giving us a K-4. Nath gave his life in vain :)
-
the issue with any MGFF armed LW plane is the mistaken damage model. If HTC would correctly model the cannon ammo for all of the early war axis aircraft that would be sufficient. if they added 109s to fill the gaps that would be better. if they added the FW190A3 and improved the performance of the FW190A8 to represent it's actual power loading and performance we would have to find something else to grouse about.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.
I will be found in nothing else but a G-10 until it is removed from service.
-
As I said guys look at his Spit lineup.
After speaking to him he is very level headed and mentioned TOD, CT and scenerios repetedly.
Come up with a historic matchup to his Spit lineup, I'm almost 100% sure you'll see it.
Think about a few things, bear in mind he even thought about introducing the P-47N as a perk plane before you go asking for monsters.
-
Yes, Pyro's a great guy. Can't say that about everyone, but the title sure fits him!
-
Originally posted by Pyro
We are going to make some changes. The G-10 will no longer be part of the 109 lineup.
AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's gonna replace it?
Why no G10?
-
Originally posted by storch
the issue with any MGFF armed LW plane is the mistaken damage model. If HTC would correctly model the cannon ammo for all of the early war axis aircraft that would be sufficient. if they added 109s to fill the gaps that would be better. if they added the FW190A3 and improved the performance of the FW190A8 to represent it's actual power loading and performance we would have to find something else to grouse about.
There's always the Zero. :)
-
Were exactly does Pyro say what Spit(s) we are getting please?
-
I spoke to him personally on the phone and he gave me permission to post the discussion.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156716
-
The G-10 in AH is really a K-4 with a 2cm option...
For all practical purposes performance wise there is no 'G-10' in AH... It's a K-4 all the way.
A G-10 should do about 425mph, in AH it is listed as 452 (same as a K-4)...
Since the model is so much like a K-4 to begin with I would suggest that they do both a K-4 (current G-10) and a G-10 (same model as K-4 but with a performance tweak to bring it to 'G-10 standards').
Even if they add a G-14 they could use the same model as the Late G-6 they have now and tweak the FM/performance as well (about 415 for a G-14...)
I assume they are going to model a K-4 and the same late G-6 when they re-do the 109s. Adding the G-14 / G-10 will only require different skins and FM tweaks...
Why not have them all..?
Feb '43 G-6 385 mph
July '44 G-14 415 mph
Oct. '44 G-10 425 mph
Oct. '44 K-4 452 mph perked...
-
Originally posted by wrag
AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's gonna replace it?
Why no G10?
I thought it was common knowledge that our G10 was based off of K4 stats? We're basically "losing" the G10 because now it's called what it was -- a K4.
EDIT: I don't know that for a fact we're just getting a renamed plane. But that's my best guess, as it's already fully modeled.
-
Would be no need to perk the K4 Wotan. The current G10 doesn't need to be perked due to overuse. The K4 would be less leathal in most pilots hands due to no 20mm nose cannon option.
Of course, just my opinion. We'll see what happens.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Would be no need to perk the K4 Wotan. The current G10 doesn't need to be perked due to overuse. The K4 would be less leathal in most pilots hands due to no 20mm nose cannon option.
Of course, just my opinion. We'll see what happens.
Yep, don't perk it. Let em fly
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Hell dont perk it, only planes worth perking are post 1943 Spits.
Planes perked due to overuse, hmmm, few fall into that category. I always thought main reason was some performance aspects (plural) it had that totally dominated other planes.
Does that mean if we all fly Zekes this tour it will get perked?
-
Thanks Kev, I notice nothing appears to be "in concrete". Moving along...
-
I thought it was common knowledge that our G10 was based off of K4 stats? We're basically "losing" the G10 because now it's called what it was -- a K4.
EDIT: I don't know that for a fact we're just getting a renamed plane. But that's my best guess, as it's already fully modeled.
Pyro has said the G-10 in AH really is a K-4 with a 20mm option.. period. Do a forum search in the A & V forums and you will see...
Now if he says that there will be no more G-10 in AH then the logical conclusion is they will take away the 2cm option from the current G-10 and just call it what it really is, a K-4.
You aren't losing anything except the 2cm option, performance will be the same.
Wilbus,
With a 109 line up as follows:
109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-14
109G-10 (if they decide to keep keep a 'G-10' in the line up, 425 mph or so..)
Then the K-4, at 452 mph, being perked is only logical.. I would suggest a 5-10 perk...
1 sortie in an F-4 can easily earn you a K-4...
Besides every one will be flying the G-14 because its the roXXor...:p
You can't very well justify perking the Spit 14 and not a K-4...
Both the free G-14 and G-10 will be more then enough...
The G-10 will also allow it as a sub for the G-6/AS and G-14/AS. These have the same supercharger as the G-10 (DB603) and K-4. This would allow a 109 with better high alt performance which is especially needed for the WETO. A G-14 alone wont give that high alt performance. It will only be faster then the G-6 we currently have with MW-50 below FTH.
So you are left with using the K-4 as a sub. At 452 mph its not fair for the allies. If you don't use it as a sub for the AS engined 109s you have no high altitude 109 to fight the bomber war over WETO.
A G-14 is needed for low altitude speed, the G-10 will fill the gap between the K-4 and G-14 (the AS engined 109s).
As I stated above its not like it would take a whole lot more to get a line up of:
G-6 (late, restricted 3cm option)
G-14
Same model different performance / skin..
G-10
K-4 (no 2cm option)
Same model different performance / skin...
I am only really interested in ToD. So perk or unperking doesn't really bother me at all. If the perk system is to be used for anything then perking the late war birds ought to be it. Or just get rid of perks (exception jet and rocket) and let the eny system balance the arena.
In ToD if the plan still is to let higher ranking players get access to the better performing aircraft then just jumping right from the G-6 to the K-4 leaves a lot out. Keeping a G-14 and a G-10 adds room for progression...
-
Looks good Wotan
109E-4
109F-4
109G-2
109G-6
109G-14
109K-4 (perked, but I would say same cost as Spit 14, only 15 perks now)
Nice spread, good matched opponents to the Spit lineup.
-
Then the K-4, at 452 mph, being perked is only logical.. I would suggest a 5-10 perk...
P47 D-11
P47 D-25
P47 D-40
P47 N
The same could be said for the P47 N really since it is for the P47 what our G10 (K4) is for the 109 series.
Then again, the POS Ta152 is still perked, be it at a low cost, so...
Well Wotan, Pyro just said the G10 will be taken out of the 109 lineup so no more G10 of any kind if I understand it correct. K4 would be most logical choice instead of the G10.
Btw, what would the difference between our G10 and a G14? I don't have any books here at the moment so can't check.
-
Seem to remeber Pyro considered perking the P47N in a thread he posted to.
I would imagine it's rattling around in his head and he's waiting to see how the first complete tour winds up with it unperked.
Judging from current usage, yes it's used a lot, but boy a lot of them are getting creamed once they are on the deck.
My prediction, will be left unperked unless they start getting a lot more kills without dieing. From what I've encountered, once on the deck and slowed down it's easy meat for a variety of planes, its not the uber Jug I'd thought it would be.
I thought it would be perked, but can't see a justification based on its current showing.
Things may be different in TOD were it will be more structured.
But isn't that always the problem? If you flew the P47N around at it's best alt of 31k you'd be mighty lonely. (might see the odd Rook shuttle on re-entry), so you end up having to come down to lower alts were other planes start getting the edge. In fact down at typical MA furball alts it doesnt seem to have a lot going for it.
Such is the MA.
-
Well Wotan, Pyro just said the G10 will be taken out of the 109 lineup so no more G10 of any kind if I understand it correct. K4 would be most logical choice instead of the G10.
Well hopefully we change his mind about that. The G-10 could be kept if they just adjust the FM/performance. It could use the same model as the K-4.
That's the reason for my replies in this thread. Hopefully we can put together a case for keeping an adjusted G-10 as well as to educate soem of the other folks.
Btw, what would the difference between our G10 and a G14? I don't have any books here at the moment so can't check.
I posted the following in the A & V forums but here it is again:
A G-14 is just a G-6 (just like the one in AH now) with MW-50.
All MW-50 does is allow if higher boost to be run below FTH. It does this but cooling the charge.
The current G-6 does a max of 386 mph. A G-14 would be a round 415 mph.
The G-6 and G-14 wouldn't have any where near the performance of the AH G-10 at altitude. The G-10 and K-4 have a larger supercharger (DB603). It provided better performance at altitude...
The reason I prefer a G-14 is it will give better speed then the current G-6 at and below FTH (low alt speed) and still be as maneuverable as the G-6.
I will provide a few SS comparisons taken from IL2 compare. I only provide these to give a general understanding of the performance differences in the 109s in question. There's no need to debate the specifics here.
First the G-6 - G-14
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/thumbs/334_1123154821_g6g14.jpg) (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/picpopup.php?ImgId=23618)
At mil power the G-6 and G-14 are about the same. Only at wep do you really see a difference.
G-6 Entered service and saw action with II/JG 53, II/JG 77, JG 27 and JG 51 in February 1943. (Prien & Rodeike)
So the G-6 is a '43 aircraft
About 5500 made (abt. 1000 of which were G-14/AS versions)
G-14 entered service with II/JG 11 and Stab/JG 53 in July 1944.
G-14 would be July '44.
If Pyro keeps the a 'G-10' then we need not worry about a G-14/AS or G-6/AS. The G-10 can sub...
Next the G-14 - G-10 (real G-10 not AH's hybrid G-10/K-4):
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/thumbs/334_1123154885_g14g10.jpg) (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/picpopup.php?ImgId=23619)
The G-10 is faster all round plus has a higher FTH then the G-14 at both mil power and wep. In WETO ToD the higher FTH will be important in dealing with the escorts and bombers. Neither the G-6 nor G-14 can match the G-10 (or the G-6/AS, G-14/AS; which the G-10 can sub for).
The G-10 entered service Oct '44. The G-6/AS entered service in May '44, the G-14/AS in or about July...
Here's a G-14/AS - G-10 comparison:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/thumbs/334_1123154929_g10g14as.jpg) (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/picpopup.php?ImgId=23620)
Its labeled as a G-6/AS in FB but it really is a G-14/AS because it has MW-50 (remember G-6 + MW-50 = G-14)
Now a real G-10 - K-4 comparison:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/thumbs/334_1123154967_g10k4.jpg) (http://www.onpoi.net/ah/picpopup.php?ImgId=23621)
Now you see there's quite a difference.
IMHO the 109s (covering '43 onward...) needed for AH would be:
G-6 '43
G-14 July '44
G-10 May - Oct '44 (depends on if used as a sub or not for the AS')
K-4 Oct '44 with a small perk...
All of these have their roll.
The G-6 is needed for '43 WETO and Ost Front
G-14 would be preferred over the G-2 and G-6 in the main but not any where near the performance of the current G-10. Used in both WETO and Ost front. They could use the same Late G-56 model and adjust the FM/performance.
G-10 why get rid of it? Just adjust the FM/performance. It will use same model as K-4. Just a different skin.
K-4 - final late war 109...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
G-10 why get rid of it? Just adjust the FM/performance. It will use same model as K-4. Just a different skin.
Hiya Wotan,
The external differences between G-10 and K-4 are small but they can't be handeled with the skin alone (K-4s recractable tailwheel etc.).
About the MG 151/20 in the K-4...are you aware of any new research that has totally removed the possibility that some K-4s carried the Mauser cannon in the nose? Prien & Rodeike state that it was mounted on some K-4s.
As an anecdote I remember Pyro talking about implementing 20mm option to the K-4 in WarBirds many years ago. :)
Personally I don't really see why G-10 should be swapped with K-4. If the 452mph is the problem just take a few mph off which would account the drag of the tailwheel...but I do agree that if K-4 is coming then slower G-10 should be there aswell for the reasons you stated.
-
A retractable tail wheel would just be a matter of eliminating the animation on the G-10 right?
None of the aircraft models are 100% in AH. Even so the differences between the K-4 and G-10 could either be handled by the skin or they would be minor enough for all but a few to notice... (same with a G-14).
I don't know if they will keep the 2cm option for a K-4 or not (the by far majority were armed with 3cm). He may just change the name then.
But a 452 mph G-10 or K4 (whatever they decide to call it) will still leave a gap. With no G-14/AS (or G-6/AS) the LW will be missing a higher alt 109 on the western front for combating escorts and bombers...
Maybe they will just do a G-14/AS and then a 425 mph G-10 would be come redundant. Who knows...
If they just add a G-14 (standard, no AS) then there will be a gap that will either just go empty or subbed with the K-4. That would be unfair to the allies in early mid - 44.
We will just have to wait and see...
-
FYI, Here's the quote by Pyro made some time ago in the A & V forum's:
The G-10 in AH is basically a K-4. The reason the G-10 was chosen over the K-4 is because the K-4 had standardized the armament to the MK 108 while the G-10 allows you the choice between that and the MG 151/20.
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
There's been some mention of a plan to include G6, G14, early G10, and newly renamed K4.
Considering that the speeds listed the early G10 as a whopping whoop-dee-doo 10mph faster than the G14, I don't think it's needed at all.
Pyro's said there won't be a G10. I have to agree with this decision. If we find an intermediate between the G6 and the K4, we only need one gap filler, not two 99% identical gap fillers.
I'm liking the idea of the G14. From memory it's about 25mph or so faster than the G6, and about 30+mph slower than the G10 -- EDIT: The CURRENT G10 -- (big enough difference).
E-4
(E-7/F-2? Possible gap filler?)
F-4
G-2
G-6
G-14
K-4
Sounds like we're getting there, to me.
I have a couple of questions, though. The G-6 has 30mm, but apparently the G10 didn't? Did the G14 have 20mm and 30mm, or is it only one of the two? More of an armament question.
-
Krusty,
The thing the G-10 wold add is a Bf109 suited to the altitudes the the big American bombers fly at. It may only be 10mph faster, but the altitude it is faster at is what matters in this context. Really, it would be a fighter for ToD and not the MA.
Like with the Spits though, I'll gladly take the Bf109s Pyro gives us. Based on Wotan's info on the G-14 it looks like a lot of fun.
-
From memory, the 109s did not have the altitude variations the spitfires had (no LF, F, HF), they all were optimized for high alt because the war started there, and once the bombers came in the war stayed there (for the LW, that had to shoot at the bombers).
So from memory the difference between a G6 (or G14) and a G10 would be minimal, altitude performance wise. The top speed might be at a slightly different altitude, but it's still so darn close I honestly can't understand why we'd need both. Both would fly the same way at 20k when chasing down bombers, and 10mph isn't going to help at all. Seems like "bulk" to me.
-
What Wotan said was the the G-10 had the DB603 with the larger blower, unlike the G-6 or G-14.
Here:
The current G-6 does a max of 386 mph. A G-14 would be a round 415 mph.
The G-6 and G-14 wouldn't have any where near the performance of the AH G-10 at altitude. The G-10 and K-4 have a larger supercharger (DB603). It provided better performance at altitude...
-
Okay, gotcha.
I'd like to counter with this idea, however:
G10 was developed into what eventually became the K4. It was developed in a relatively short span of time, as well (both G10 and K4 are '44 planes). There is a top speed jump from the early G10 to the K4, but for the most part there's nothing else that's changed.
2 planes, identical in construction, and performance, the one being 20mph (?) slower than the other. I'd suggest logically that we just pick one of them. If I had to just pick one of them, it would be the one that is slightly faster. So I'd pick the K4. They're from the same time frame, so there's no role the G10 could play that the K4 could not substitute.
I say use the K4 for anything that would require the G10. It's already got the speed of the best G10's.
It's the same time frame, it's almost the same plane, I'd say just use the K-4, which if it isn't perked now probably won't be perked in the future.
My $0.02, as I'm generally a practical person, is to pick the better of the two and drop the other. That is, pick the K4 and drop the G10 (with whatever G10 stats you pick to model it as)
-
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the official name of the G-6/MW5-0 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.
The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.
The G-14 used only the following engines:
DB605AM,
DB605ASM,
DB605ASB/*ASC
*available only in 1945; the ASC (C = C3 fuel) was not cleared for maximum output until March 45 at the same time as the DB605DC.
Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.
The DB605AS (M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.
The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.
The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).
The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.
So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.
G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.
With out a AS or G-10 (425mph) then there is no LW fighter that can fight at escort altitude in WETO ToD. The K-4 would have to be subbed and that would give to great an advantage to the LW, one they didn't have.
Chances are the K-4 wont be subbed and the LW will have to do with basically a '43 G-6 until Oct '44 (thats what we have now). Above FTH MW-50 on the G-14 will add very little extra 'speed' at beyond whats available to the G-6. It would be the same as the G-6 we have now. A G-14 would be better then our G-6 below FTH only with 'wep' (MW-50).
This leaves a gap in the LW planeset for combating the Ami Escorts in a WETO ToD.
As such why get rid of a G-10? Unless they add a G-14/AS the LW planeset for ToD would be no better off then it is now.
So I would suggest just keep the G-10 and redo its FM/performance, it can fill in for the AS 109s and plug the whole between the G-14 and K-4.
If it has already been decided that the G-10 designation will be dropped then instead of a standard G-14 please consider a G-14/AS (MW-50 for low alt + DB603 sc for higher alt).
These aircrafta re different, its more then just a few MPH here or there...
-
G10 was developed into what eventually became the K4. It was developed in a relatively short span of time, as well (both G10 and K4 are '44 planes). There is a top speed jump from the early G10 to the K4, but for the most part there's nothing else that's changed.
Actually, the G-10 came after the K-4.
IIRC the LW was pushing a binary project of developing a successor to the Gustav, and then, upgrading all the existing Gustavs to standards of the new variant after it arrived. The former would be designated the Kurfurst, and the latter would be designated the G-10.
But the K-4 was being delayed too much, so the LW simply put the G-10 on hold, and then kicked off an interim project which would standardize all G-6s and add a Methanol-Water injection to their DB605A engines. These standardized G-6s would be used until the K-4 would come, and then the Gustavs can be finally be upgraded to the K-4 standard G-10. These 'temporary' Gustavs would be designated the G-14.
The end result was, in 1944 the grand majority of 109s produced would become G-14s. Then the K-4 arrived, and then finally, some of the G-14s were equipped with the DB605D as the K-4, and became the G-10.
The G-10 was actually the last official 109, not the K-4.
-
I also support the idea of a G-10 separate from a K-4, with a correct performance levels.
Perk the K-4 lightly, and give out a 427mph Bf109G-10 to be used as the ultimate free 109 for the MA.
Also, the existence of the G-10 in ToD, like Wotan mentions, would be very useful too.
-
IIRC the LW was pushing a binary project of developing a successor to the Gustav, and then, upgrading all the existing Gustavs to standards of the new variant after it arrived. The former would be designated the Kurfurst, and the latter would be designated the G-10.
No the G-10 didn't come after the K-4...
In fact they both began service in Oct '44. Thsi was do to problems with the DB605D. In fact the G-10 was to come before the G-14 but it didn't work out that way.
G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
-
Pyro's already said there won't be a G10 anymore. So I guess all we can do is suggest the hole-pluggers for him to include.
If the G6 is about 385 top speed, and the K4 is about 452 top speed, what is the G14/AS's top speed?
G6 - 385
G14 - 415
G14/AS - ???
K4 - 452
Now you mention a valid point with the turbochargers. I personally find the 109s fly pretty well even at 20k. Naturally the G10 (as we have it) performs better but it also has a more powerful engine and 'charger setup. The cynic in me says "Let the K-4 sub for a G10, the axis will need all the help they can get against the flap-using USAAF planes", but the part of me that wouldn't mind a representative gap filler says "Hrm... Maybe a G14/AS is better than just a G14 for this role".
Also, going by the quote that says some had their MG151/20s replaced with Mk108s, but most didn't, I'd see that as probable cause to include 2 gun options for the G14 (like our current G10 has now).
-
If the G6 is about 385 top speed, and the K4 is about 452 top speed, what is the G14/AS's top speed?
See the chart I posted in the previous post. The differences in speed / FTH are minimal ,that's why a G-10 at 425 mph or so could easily sub...
But the differences in appearance might requite a whole new model (more work?). Where as using the late G-6 we have now for a standard G-14 and the K-4/G-10 they have now for a new G-10 would mostly entail fixes on the FM/performance side (less work?).
Yes the G-14 and G-10 should keep the 2cm/3cm options...
-
Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway. Choosing what to model, that's the important thing.
I know it leaves a speed gap between the last two, but the only way I can see to please all the CT/TOD scenario guys is to add 2 planes or add the G14/AS as a gap filler.
G6
G14/AS
K-4
This would replace
G6
G14
G10
K4
Just as a random thought (not sure how happy Pyro would be with this one)
What about a de-rated K4? A slightly slower one? If we have a G6 and a G14 (which I think has more use than a 14/AS or a G10), then the K-4 would be able to sub as a G10 if it were, say, 15-20 mph slower.
The G10s underwent development, and the highest end G10s were comparable to K4s, but what about early K4s? Were they slightly less powerful? Was there a K4 that had a slower top speed, which would bring the K4 into range of "G10 substitute"?
-
Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway. Choosing what to model, that's the important thing.
Sure it is, the difference being to get a G-6, G-14 (one model); G-10, K-4 (one model) would require just 2 models (1 + 1)...
To get a G-6, G-14/AS, K-4 would require 3 (1 + 1 + 1)...
Do you pay attention to what you read?
There' s no limitation on the number of planes AH can have, so why throw one away when you don't have to and may save work in the long run?
-
I've done some 3D modeling and animation. I've taken classes in 3 different animation programs. I think that any minor difference between the 109 models (subtle shapes of the cowling, and what-not) are very easy to manipulate, compared to creating an entirely new model. It's much easier to modify an existing model, and say going from the G6 to the G14 you have minor cowling adjustments, that's simple enough to do. It's not like you have to remodel it from scratch.
So basically, the 3D modeling isn't an issue. It'll get done, regardless.
I'm curious about what the subtle differences were in the engine cowling, as stated for the G10 and G14/AS. What were they, and how subtle?
EDIT: a misunderstanding has occured. My comment before about the models was about the 3d shapes that skinners can put skins on.
I know there are unlimited numbers of planes you can add, but I don't think we need unlimited numbers of 109s, either. I think that a representative lineup can be made by tweaking the K4 and introducing the G14. The K4 is already in the game. The G6 is already in the game. So adding the G14 would only be 1 extra aircraft to model (not counting an E7/F2 model, should there be one)
EDIT 2: You list the K4 as a new model. It would be any G10 that would be a new model. We already have the K4, just thought I'd point that out.
-
EDIT 2: You list the K4 as a new model. It would be any G10 that would be a new model. We already have the K4, just thought I'd point that out.
Am I dealing with some with a 'full deck'?
Look bud you just said yourself:
Models aren't an issue. They're all being remodeled anyway.
There's your answer...
They need to re-do the 109 models to bring them up to AH2 standards...
When they do the physical k-4 model that same aircraft model can be used for a G-10 as well. Thus to get both a G-10 and K-4 it may only require some tweaks on the performance/fm end.
Can you follow that?
When they do the physical G-6 model that same aircraft model can be used for a G-14 as well. Thus to get both a G-6 and a G-14 it may only require some tweaks on the performance/fem end.
To do a G-14/AS it may require a whole new model because of the front end. I am not going to bother and go through all the differences with you because I don't think you will grasp them. If you want go look at the G-6 and the G-10 in AH now and see if you spot anything...
-
That was a better description of what you were saying, so then my original reply about the 3d models being easy to edit was on-topic (I had feared it was not).
Okay, I understand what you said now. 3D models are still easy enough to edit that it won't be a problem if 5 new 109 models are made or if 6 new 109 models are made (originals = 5, add G14 = 6).
But that's a minor point, I suppose. Very minor. Let's just let it be and move on.
-
Here's some info I gathered;
The 109G-10 was actually the last 'production' Bf-109 built. The plane first flew a few months after the K-4, but no G-10s were new built. Every G-10 was a rebuild of the earlier 109G-6 airframe. These airframes were brought up to as close to K-4 standards as possible with the existing airframe.
The result for researchers is that the plane is as difficult to identify from photos as just about any 109 variant. Early G-10s did not have the DB.605D engine in them and had to rely on the earlier DB.605AS engine. These 109G-10/AS airframes can be distinguished by the absence of two small 'bumps' under the forward cowling as on the later aircraft. Early G-10s also had the narrower 660x160 wheels and tires so didn't have the long wheel fairings in the upper wing. Those with the 660x190 wheels and tired had the longer fairings.
All G-10s had the Erla Haube canopy and tall wooden fin and rudder. Some had a short tail wheel strut and others the longer version. There were also two different rudders, one with two additional external trim tabs. In addition, there were two upper cowling designs, the type 100 with a smooth upsweep on the left side and the type 110 with a flat plate fairing instead. While many G-10s had a deeper oil cooler than the earlier G-14, this was not always the case. A final difference was that some had a short antenna mast and some had none at all with the antenna lead going right into the fuselage spine aft of the cockpit.
Unfortunately, most profiles will not show the upper wing fairings and many photos are such that this feature is not visible. This makes it almost impossible to determine if an airframe is a G-10 or a G-14 or even a later G-6, especially if it had the 605AS engine. Only serials could tell. This has led to several aircraft being identified as a G-14 in one book and a G-10 in another!
Sub-types of 109s proliferated, and not all were as interchangeable as mass-production techniques are supposed to insure.
The most-produced series, the Gustav, saw attempts to stabilize production and bring everything to one standard with the Bf-109G-6 of 1943-44, and the Bf-109G-14 of late 1944.
The G-10 was created by remanufacturing older airframes, mostly from the G-6 sub-series, as well as the G-14. Interestingly enough, it became operational in December 1944, after the debut of the Bf-109K-4, the last new-production series.
All following Bf 109G versions were modified older Bf 109Gs. So the G-10 was not an uniform type, but consisted of all kinds of Bf 109Gs being transformed partially to Bf 109G-10 specifications.
The most recognizable change was the use of the "Erla-Haube" canopy. This canopy improved the pilots view, which was often criticized before. The Bf 109G-10, also called "Super-Bulge" (German: "Super-Beule"), saw a refinement of the bulges covering the breeches of the cowl mounted MG 131, these taking on a more elongated and streamlined form. A similar varying product was the Bf 109G-12. This was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109 and was rarely armed.
Most every info seems to indicate;
1) the G-10 began to appear AFTER the K-4 had already entered service
2) ..were reusing old G-14 airframes
-
That info would be inaccurrate...
Read the quote above that I provided. I believe it originated with Butch and comes from MTT meetings minutes.
Both the G-10 and K-4 entered service around the same time, October '44...
There were two lines of progression -
G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605AM with MW-50.
It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.
Delays in the DB605D delayed the introduction of the G-10.
-
A 30mm-only 109 as you've suggested should NOT be perked. It takes a lot of practice (and some luck) to learn how to properly use taters. When you only get 65 of them, your sorties are limited to 2-3 kills at BEST if you spray. 2x12mm is more or less useless unless you can shoot in the 20% range (maybe 20 or so active players are capable of this), or are shooting at AFK's, climbers and soft buffs.
-
The K4 (currently what we call G10) has speed and high alt performance going for it...
I personally don't find it that fast, and have rarely outrun much in it. The high alt performance is nice for when you're high enough to take advantage of it, but at those alts all RAF/USAAF planes turn better than it regardless of how the engine runs.
With only 30mm you may be right, wetrat, but don't forget it can also carry 20mm gondolas (one each wing) as well.
And then there's the climb rate, and the zoom capabilities. The K4 climbs extremely well (one of the best in the game with WEP) and can loop/zoom with the best.
So it wouldn't be immediately overwhelming, but as a total package I can see why some might want it perked.
I worry more about our current G10 than I do about the current spitV, because it's much faster and can climb much better.
-
Would be cool to see a spit with Clipped Wings :aok
-
Wrong thread, but it would be nice to look at a spit and say "Oh, clipped wings, I know exactly which spit that is!" whereas now it's hard to tell the 5, 9, and 14 apart until you're inside close icon range.
-
A 30mm-only 109 as you've suggested should NOT be perked. It takes a lot of practice (and some luck) to learn how to properly use taters. When you only get 65 of them, your sorties are limited to 2-3 kills at BEST if you spray. 2x12mm is more or less useless unless you can shoot in the 20% range (maybe 20 or so active players are capable of this), or are shooting at AFK's, climbers and soft buffs.
You know the G-10 kicks arse, I have seen you remember...:p
ignore Krusty he hasn't seen the inside of the main...
452 mph aint fast at all is it..?
-
Wotan is incorrect. I have been inside the main on several different time periods.
I didn't say it wasn't "fast" heh heh, I said I can't seem to outrun much in it, but that's a pilot problem, not plane problem :lol
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Wotan is incorrect. I have been inside the main on several different time periods.
I didn't say it wasn't "fast" heh heh, I said I can't seem to outrun much in it, but that's a pilot problem, not plane problem :lol
so you know MA is changed, its not like 2 years ago, even not like 6 months ago
btw where is 109T lined up? :)